Hi all—This is a piece I wrote earlier this year, which I intended to be a sort of early culminating exercise for myself (I’m still obviously a total amateur). It ended up winning first prize at my undergraduate’s yearly contest last year—but the more time has gone by, and the more I’ve looked at it, the less sure I am that it’s actually any good (I’m also just questioning my style in general and very much still trying to fully find my voice).Any feedback would be very welcome (or if you just want to call me retarded, of course).Thank you. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Zlw1hBEoKv-wfyvv3zbhNpVcubNrLruGvjuZDH--mcs/edit
it's interesting reading this. you clearly have studied epic poetry from centuries/millennia past. It's like an imitation of ancient and like Milton-era western epic poetry. but it is kind of a slog to read and i find it clunky and uninspiring. despite the fact that you have a good, surprising way of writing. it feels like reading a forgery old poetry that is not as good as the old poetry. It feels not urgent at all or needed in today's world. Like an ornament. Or something. Have you tried writing poetry using the language of today, and trying to speak about things closer to your (pardon the cheesy expression) heart?
>>23982173It sounds like you're trying too hard to imitate Milton and other ancient poets, only you try too hard and overshoot the mark.Also, the drop lines are incredibly annoying. They work in free verse, but they don't work with iambic pentameter.The biggest problem is you never make it clear exactly what you're talking about. You say something, but it's unelaborated, the reader doesn't know exactly what's going on, and then you say something else. It sounds like you're tossing words at random. And you use way too many metaphors and derivations.Look at these lines.>Before ran over from the halcyon>That lips in love its bright profundity>My ardent nectar, and upon the earth>Turned in that spill to spoil, resplendent hence>Alone with its own stupor’s seething jewels,Nectar? What nectar? And how can nectar be ardent or passionate? It's what bees use to make honey. It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't make any sense. And why would nectar have profundity? And how can profundity be bright? How can nectar kiss its own profundity? And the nectar has stupor, and the stupor has jewels? Which are seething?None of this makes any literal sense, which means it's a metaphor . . . for what? It's not clear what the metaphor is for. When Shakespeare uses a metaphor, it's immediately understood what the metaphor refers to. But with your poem, the reader is left confused. And you mistake this confusing effect as a sign of genius poetry, a poem too intelligent for the reader to understand.
